Furthermore, I don't see any valid comparison between soil that has been enriched by decomposition--the end of that process--and the belief that a Hindu will be purified by bathing in or drinking water of the Ganges River.

We don't eat that enriched soil but instead eat plants grown in it, an entirely different matter.

Hindus from all over the world make pilgrimage to Mother Ganges--to bathe in it.

I don't think non-Hindus can judge this to be "unreasonable" since it is so pervasive in the general Hindu belief system--any more than a Hindu could judge the urge of many Christians to visit Israel/the Holy Land for some undemonstrable "spiritual" benefits.

(BTW--I have a master's degree in Comparative Religions and Cultures so my info comes form having studied world religions for many years.)

Just because it's a pervasive Hindu belief doesn't make it rational in view of the river's extreme degree of pollution. Christians traveling to the sites of their Holy Land on pilgrimage is not equivalent

Dot--hi.

Why do you think that they are not equivalent? This could be a very interesting discussion. :)

Just because it's a pervasive Hindu belief doesn't make it rational in view of the river's extreme degree of pollution.

Christians traveling to the sites of their Holy Land on pilgrimage is not equivalent

Dot--hi.

Why do you think that they are not equivalent? This could be a very interesting discussion. :)

The reasons for each pilgrimage are dramatically different, WG.

The Hindus filing this lawsuit assert that they are religiously obliged to go to the Ganges for spiritual purification to right a misdeed--having eaten a forbidden food.

Christians don't travel to their Holy Land for such reasons. There is no sect of Christianity that mandates a trip to the Holy Land in order to be forgiven or spiritually cleansed for a transgression. In fact, most Christians would regard having unintentionally and unknowingly eaten a taboo food as nothing wrong. Sin is only the result of willful intent.

A good many Christians, in fact, would regard a belief that one must go to the Holy Land to be forgiven as both idolatrous and denying the power of God to forgive when asked.

Just because it's a pervasive Hindu belief doesn't make it rational in view of the river's extreme degree of pollution. Christians traveling to the sites of their Holy Land on pilgrimage is not equivalent

Dot--hi.

Why do you think that they are not equivalent? This could be a very interesting discussion. :)

The reasons for each pilgrimage are dramatically different, WG. The Hindus filing this lawsuit assert that they are religiously obliged to go to the Ganges for spiritual purification to right a misdeed--having eaten a forbidden food. Christians don't travel to their Holy Land for such reasons. There is no sect of Christianity that mandates a trip to the Holy Land in order to be forgiven or spiritually cleansed for a transgression. In fact, most Christians would regard having unintentionally and unknowingly eaten a taboo food as nothing wrong. Sin is only the result of willful intent. A good many Christians, in fact, would regard a belief that one must go to the Holy Land to be forgiven as both idolatrous and denying the power of God to forgive when asked. Hence, there is no equivalence.

Hi Dot--thanks for your reply.

I'd like to take some time to think about how to phrase my response so I'll be back later to do that.